Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PS2pcGAMER

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] PS2pcGAMER

Final (62/5/5) ended 01:54, April 8, 2006 (UTC)

PS2pcGAMER (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Wikipedia heavily since mid-November, but I was a casual editor for 3-4 months before that. I realize a big part of being an admin is to do maintenance for the project. I have participated in Wikipedia:Bad links and have closed nominations at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates both of which are very labor intensive maintenance duties. I have also tried to participate at least partially in many different aspects of Wikipedia including all of the XfD pages, editing templates, etc to make myself more well-rounded and familiar with Wikipedia. I have also participated in policy discussion some, especially at WP Talk:FPC. Furthermore, I have fought vandalism regularly, especially as I see it on my watchlist and in #vandalism-en-wp (the IRC CVU channel). Occasionally I'll go on RC patrol, but I tend to just remove vandalism as I come across it instead of actively searching for it. I am also proud of my contributions to the articles, everything from fixing spelling to rewriting large portions of an article. Finally, I spent time greeting new users with a personalized message as I come across them on my watchlist and I have also guided new users with any questions or problems that they may have. Feel free to ask me any questions, big or small, that you may have. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom, I accept. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, good answers to questions show understanding of process. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 02:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - Richardcavell 02:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support. Will make good use of the mop. GfloresTalk 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 03:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. supportBenon 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support --Jay(Reply) 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support JoshuaZ 05:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Mild support, not enough editings but a good experience with main space. Shyam (T/C) 06:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support nomination for admin. Yamaguchi先生 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, meets my criteria, good and experienced editor. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 09:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, seems OK. JIP | Talk 11:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Good editor, ran into them a few times on WP:AIV. --Syrthiss 13:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support A good user and excellent replies to questions. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Good track record and thoughtful answer to questions. FloNight talk 15:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support TigerShark 15:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. Run into this user at FPC regularly and I think would make a good admin. |→ Spaully°τ 15:40, 1 April 2006 (GMT)
  17. Strong support per FloNight and previous experience with user. --M@thwiz2020 17:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support seems to be a good, well-rounded user. I thought editcountitis on RfAs died a while ago, but apparently I was wrong. for the record, I had about 1,800 edits when I became an admin. edit count means very little. good luck.--Alhutch 18:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support I don't remember where I saw this user, but I remember thinking to myself at the time, "here's a good future admin." So, here we are. Xoloz 18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Took a look at his edit history, looked good. Has my support. Gwernol 18:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Good candidate, and would make a good administrator. (Of course he has "enough edits"!) — TheKMantalk 18:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. support - vi clinches it William M. Connolley 19:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Good self-nom and answers. Plenty of experience despite relatively low edit count. --TantalumTelluride 19:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, with identical sentiments as TheKMan. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. good work. pschemp | talk 20:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support, you got my support. I like your answers. Gateman1997 00:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support - would have prefered you waited for a non self nom but you're a great editor -- Tawker 00:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. I've seen some good editing and the questions have been well answered. Thryduulf 01:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 01:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. It seems that people need more and more edits to become an admin. First the edit limit is 1500, then 2000, now 3000~40000. Editcountitis is scary. Anyway, you deserve the mop, regardless of your editcount.--Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 02:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Leidiot 02:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. ""Support"" Covington 04:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC) - Excellent candidate. Experienced editor.
  33. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support, great answers to questions, and have seen editor before making good edits. - Tangotango 10:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Saw through his contributions. Brilliant; low edit critics are simply too harsh. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support - Although I've heard of the user, I've not (to my knowledge at least) seen any of his work so my reasoning is twofold: 1) To attempt to cancel out those opposers who feel that 2,800 isn't enough edits. That sort of criterion is totally unreasonable in my opinion and 2) I trust a lot of the supporters above. Good luck! --Celestianpower háblame 14:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Contributions look fine, and 2,800 is plenty to demonstrate competence. ProhibitOnions 19:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Good number of contributions. You deserve the mop! --Andy123(talk) 22:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support - good editor, good work in article and wikipedia namespaces Afonso Silva 23:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support hey, I like vi, too, but you play games on a IBM Personal System/2? --rogerd 04:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support looking fine to me. --Mmounties (Talk) 04:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  44. Guettarda 13:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  45. Wholehearted Support: Wikipedia needs more video/PC game admins, and you're one of the best candidates in that realm. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    Not that I am suggesting you change your vote, but I figured I should mention that contrary to my username, I don't do much editing related to video games. I created my online username about 5 years ago and just kept using it even though my time spent gaming has decreased dramatically. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support™. --Rory096 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:32, 3 April 2006]
  48. Support. --Myles Long 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Dedicated, mop-ready 'pedian Deizio 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Jedi6-(need help?) 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  51. Very weak, but still, Support, changed from neutral, per above. NSLE (T+C) at 01:03 UTC (2006-04-04)
  52. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support Good answers and the vi won me over ;) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 12:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support--Jusjih 15:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  55. Martin 16:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support PS2pcGAMER has been more than helpful at WP:FPC recently and his/her contributions to several policy discussions I've witnessed recently have demonstrated a clear commitment to consensus. This is not someone who will act hastily or without the consent of the community and s/he deserves a mop if he wants one! ~ Veledan • Talk 21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support excellent and very helpful editor —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-04-05 05:55Z
  58. Support. --Ligulem 11:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. Good contributions, reasonable number of edits, vi user. :) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support, looks good. Hiding talk 21:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Pepsidrinka 14:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  62. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Not enough edits. --Masssiveego 04:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Good editor however does not meet my criteria.--Looper5920 08:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I hate to bring you down on the edits here but 2800 just isn't enough for me - just give it some more time. Weatherman90 15:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Pre my own standards. I would give it a couple more months. Moe ε 19:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose due to lack of experience in project namespace - it makes it seem to me that you don't have much knowledge of policies. Stifle 21:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

#:No reason to oppose, but still sitting on fence. Drop me a talk message if I don't decide within 2 days. NSLE (T+C) at 02:54 UTC (2006-04-01)
  1. Neutral until questions are answered: Emacs or vi? Pepperoni pizza or sausage? How many sealed seals that seals sealed could a seal steal if a seal could steal sealed seals that seals sealed? If you become a "made man", what delicious foodstuffs would you provide your fellow admins with? --maru (talk) contribs 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    vi, pepperoni, 42 (42 is always the answer, right?), cupcakes on Wednesdays. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    vi? vi? I'm almost tempted to change my vote to neutral just because of that... JIP | Talk 13:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    I was almost going to support and then noticed that!  Grue  16:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    I know the feeling, Grue. I feel the same way! BTW, the correct answers were emacs, sausage, 14 2/3s, and oolong tea. --maru (talk) contribs 04:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral leaning support. If the user had, lets say, another 500-1k edits and perhaps another month of experience I'd give my strong support. If this RfA, for some reason, fails - you'll have my support next time round! Computerjoe's talk 19:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Not enough MediaWiki: edits. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 23:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    Now that made me laugh! --Celestianpower háblame 14:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral closer to support though. Would like to see more project related contributions. — xaosflux Talk 04:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - to low on the mainspace edits. No reasons to oppose abakharev 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 02:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • See PS2pcGAMER's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I foresee myself primarily working on speedy deletions and helping with WP:AIV. I remember a few instances of adding a user/ip to WP:AIV and it taking quite a bit of time for an admin to block the user and the user, so that the user was able to keep vandalizing. I also foresee handling WP:RFPP, especially semiprotecting pages that have been heavily vandalized recently or full protecting pages that are in the middle of an edit war by users until the conflict is solved. I realize that protecting pages is a last choice, but sometimes a necessary one. I'd also like to be able to delete images that are copyright violations or have no source information.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As far as mainspace articles is concerned, I am most proud of my contributions to Top Gear. I have slowly but consistently been working to improve this article up to standards. Changes since I've started editing. I'm proud to say I have brought in a number of additions to the article including rewriting the intro and history sections and adding the awards and criticism sections along with bring in references (there were originally none) to make the article more balanced. This article has been a particular challenge as it has a tendency to get filled with fancruft. I am also very proud of my contributions to Wikipedia:Bad links (a dull, but necessary task) and discussing policy and closing nominations on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates which is a very time consuming task.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I'm sure everyone who has spent at least a few weeks on Wikipedia has ran into a conflict of some sort. Fortunately, I have been luckily for in that the people I have disagreed with have been very level headed for the most part. I have participated in the contentious and emotional (for some people) of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim name dispute on the Talk:Anaheim Angels. I ran into an odd situation on Talk:Ferrari Enzo Ferrari#What exactly is going on? where an IP addressed accused me of some odd things that never took place. It ended up spreading over to my talk page. I tried to rationally discuss it with the IP, but s/he never responded so I let it go. SFoskett gave me a barnstar for keeping my cool. I also ran into a similar situation with another user, Zoicite, after warning him about editing closed AfDs. He proceeded to attack me but I still tried to further explain to him the AfD process. In all of these situations I am proud to say that I have kept a level head and to be honest, I never became stressed out. I feel this is partly responsible due to my editing style as I bring up potentially contentious issues on talk pages before making the changes to an article and while this goes against being bold, I have found that this is a better approach sometimes as it minimizes tensions. I plan to handle future potential stressful situations the same way.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without prior direction from the Arb Com?
I would use great reserve in blocking users indefinitely. However, I've seen new users blocked indefinitely for vandalizing the featured picture with genitalia and I feel that is appropriate. As per WP:BP, I'd block any so called "public accounts" if I were to come across one. Any username that violated the username policy would be subject to being indefinitely blocked. For example, a username that was "Jimb0 Wales" would be subject to an indefinite block. Also, if a user who is indefinitely blocked, creates a new username and vandalizes more, they should be indefinitely blocked, although the users would need to be verified as the same. The most excessive repeat vandals are also subject to a blocking, but they might also be given lengthly blocks instead.
2 Are there any admin-powers that you think all users should have, and if so why?
This is an interesting question. I followed Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges fairly closely, although I did not participate greatly in it. Although the policy didn't suggest to, but to answer your question, I'm not sure if I'd go so far to give all users the rollback button so liberally, but I wouldn't be opposed to there being an easy way for any user to get it (and lose it, if abused). I think giving all users any one of the admin powers would lead to abuse. You certainly wouldn't want to give all users the ability to delete articles as a vandal could simply create an account and wreak havoc. To sum it up, I don't think all users should be given any admin powers, but I wouldn't be opposed to a level between regular user and sysop with the powers to revert, etc.
Additional questions from Rob Church
  1. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    Answer I am confident with my ability to deal with stressful situations. To me (and I suppose most people who are reading this), Wikipeida is a very serious project. I wouldn't jeopardize the project because I was emotional about an issue. I feel that I am able to maintain an objective point of view. If I feel that my objectivity was somehow compromised, I would remove myself from the situation and let another admin handle it.
  2. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    Answer With sysop powers I'll have the capability to help out the project in different ways than I previously could. It seems like every day that I run into a situation where I can't fix myself because I lack sysop powers. Depending on the situation, it may allow me to cut out a step in the process. For instance, there was an issue with the PotD recently where it linked to the wrong article. I posted about it on Talk:Main Page, but it still took over a half an hour for it to be corrected. If I were an admin, it would have taken seconds.
  3. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    Answer I feel that administrators primarily hold a technical position, but with a project of this scope, the political side of things seems to be playing a bigger or maybe just a more visible role. The majority of what administrators typical do is maintenance work... closing xFDs and carrying them out, maintaining the front page, (semi-)protecting pages, etc. But as we have seen recently with the bureaucrats, there is a definitely a political nature to having such a visible position and as we know, Franc's judgement was questioned after the whole RfA debacle and it led to his to resignation.

Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.